Talk:Mephistopheles
Concerning the Valsharess 1. The Reaper states he cannot defy the one who commands him by True Name, no qualifiers, no butts, he implicitly cannot defy. Meph defied the Valsharess more than once even before being ordered to kill the adventurer. 2. Only Gruul the Quarry Boss mentions possible use of Meph's true name, and that he doesn't believe it likely. 3. The Knower of Names was still imprisoned during which time the Valsharess would have needed her to find out Meph's True Name, and no mention is made of any other possible way for another to learn a being's True Name. Sure you could say Lolth gave it to her, but then why wouldn't Lolth also give her the name of the adventurer? 4. It makes no sense what so ever (and quite frankly is borderline stupid) to accept that you can use a True Name to kill a being, but not to command them to kill "an extension of themselves". That's like saying you could command them to die, but not to cut off their hand. Consdiering you can even use the True Names to take the souls of your henchmen, I seriously doubt the limit about "extension of one's self" applies to True Names. 5. Quote the Reaper "If a person learns your True Name and speaks it to you, they then command all that you are". The Valsharess never once commands Meph by his True Name, and states only that she bound him. Binding a demon does not require a True Name, and he is literally bound until the Valsharess is killed. All that was needed was summoning, and magic. Powerful magic, but magic none the less. 6. If you use the Sleeping Man's True Name to force him to give up his quest, he dies, no saving throw, no breaking free because you "broke the rules" he simply dies. 7. Yes I know in one evil ending where you use Meph's True Name to make him your lacky it states he tries to trick you as he did the Valsharess. All that means is that he tried to trick you, doesn't say how, doesn't say in reference to what. It is not proof the Val used his True Name. 8. Meph stated that the Valsharess didn't understand the power she was commanding. True Names are pretty straightforward, the Knower and several other beings explain them to you. No limits to their power are ever put in place. Only one being in the entire story suggests the Valsharess learned Meph's True Name, (Gruul) and even he states that he doesn't believe it. Beyond that it harms the novelty of the hero's new found power if it has already been used in that manor. There is no proof the Valsharess used his True Name, and to suggest otherwise is speculation without confirmation. All the article needs to state as that she bound him to her service, and that she broke the rules of that binding allowing him to break free. That is all that there is proof of, because that is all that is stated in the story. :Sure, I guess. No-one was arguing with the first edit to that effect. I'm kind of inclined to think the game was just inconsistent about how true names work, and I'm not sure it's true there were no more mentions than that of the Valsharess using Mephistopheles', but I can't argue with most of the above points, at least without playing through the game again. Ville V. Kokko 09:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) It is fairly clear based upon what is being said above that the Valsharess never had his actual true name, but she *may* have believed falsely that she did and he went along with the deception. --Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 23:28, March 29, 2014 (UTC)